The thing that made me so angry about all this was seeing in my local paper a front-page article and photo about how many people went to chickfila in my (admittedly small and mostly conservative) town. And that there were people gathering signatures for the forking personhood amendment petition from the people in line. I'm so mad and I want to do something but I have no idea how.

Most cities have zoning guidelines to follow. Some zoning laws allow for community input (ie allowing Walmart to tear up a battlefield here for a parking lot was shot down). The land was available for use, sadly enough, and zoning laws would have allowed it, with permission.

_________________"This is the creepiest post ever if you don't know who Molly is." -Fee"a vegan death match sounds like something where we all end up hugging." -LisaPunk

What grounds can a city, state, zoning commission, whoever have to legally deny a license to operate, or whatever?

If Company X has a history of employment discrimination, for instance, can a city say, "We don't want you here"? If their CEO is a convicted bad guy, could a town keep "his" restaurant out?

Well it depends on what the request is. Some things can be pretty subjective, like whether or not a commission wants to change the zoning of a property - generally in that case they can do a "feelings test" to determine if they want a certain business to move in. On the other hand, if a property is zoned commercial already and the business moving in is a legal operation, denying occupancy requires a heck of a lot more justification. Denying any permit etc simply on the basis that you don't like the opinion of the company president is a definite no-no.

Sometimes though because the onus ends up on the business or the individual it's hard to prove discrimination in a permit denial. In the case of CFA though, should a denial take place with the current governments in Boston, SF, or Chicago, they would have a pretty easy speculative argument at the very least.

I think it's too much of a case by case matter to provide any clear cut but broad reaching answer to your questions other than to say that simple speech, no matter how offensive, is not legal grounds for zoning denial. If someone was convicted of fraud there might be grounds for at least some more scrutiny, but I'm not sure about out and out refusal simply on historical grounds.

Most cities have zoning guidelines to follow. Some zoning laws allow for community input (ie allowing Walmart to tear up a battlefield here for a parking lot was shot down). The land was available for use, sadly enough, and zoning laws would have allowed it, with permission.

I should really read your responses before I bother replying next time...footie feel free to ignore my ramblings above because lavawitch said it in a more concise manner.

Can someone explain to me why free speech applies when we're talking about corporate donations? I know Cathy can pretty much say what he wants and spend his own money on what he wants, but when we're talking about CFA, I don't get it. Corporate personhood confuses me.

_________________"I feel like it's not a real political discussion if I'm not morally opposed to something I don't understand." - ndpittman

Can someone explain to me why free speech applies when we're talking about corporate donations? I know Cathy can pretty much say what he wants and spend his own money on what he wants, but when we're talking about CFA, I don't get it. Corporate personhood confuses me.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking to be honest, but denying the ability of a company to contribute money to legal organizations would be a horrible path to go down. CFA, as far as I know at least, has never contributed to a group that has been charged with actual hate speech (in the legal sense - I think many people would agree that the movement that bans gay marriage and pushes religious ideology on others is at least intolerant, if not hateful). Basically it doesn't matter if it's a company or an individual, the government can't act prejudiced toward them simply on the basis that they have a difference of opinion on a matter that is not cut and dry in the legal realm.

Can someone explain to me why free speech applies when we're talking about corporate donations? I know Cathy can pretty much say what he wants and spend his own money on what he wants, but when we're talking about CFA, I don't get it. Corporate personhood confuses me.

There was a court case involving "Citizens United" that the Supreme Court that set the precedent. If that ruling gets reversed (some think it might in future years with all this Super PAC nonsense) it will be very interesting.

The chain restaurant had a "record-setting day" on Wednesday, according to a spokesman, as customers descended on its roughly 1,600 locations across the United States in support of its president's contentious stance against gay marriage.

The one-day blowout came after Republican ex-Presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum called for supporters to send a message about "traditional values" by eating at the chain, known for its chicken sandwiches and waffle fries and for being closed on Sundays.

_________________My oven is bigger on the inside, and it produces lots of wibbly wobbly, cake wakey... stuff. - The PoopieB.

What grounds can a city, state, zoning commission, whoever have to legally deny a license to operate, or whatever?

If Company X has a history of employment discrimination, for instance, can a city say, "We don't want you here"? If their CEO is a convicted bad guy, could a town keep "his" restaurant out?

Dammit, this got all away from the Chick filet (I refuse to spell it all cutesy. Free speech, bisques) and got me all confused on something I thought was cut and dry, as in the crappy food chain has the right to operate wherever.

This makes me think zoning laws can be forked up. Like I know in my area, "adult" businesses of any type can't be anywhere near schools (which I'm okay with) or churches (which I am not.) There was some sort of swinger's club that got shut down near here before it opened for a number of reasons, but the primary one cited being that it was in view of a church (but it also completely ignored fire codes). This is despite the fact it was a very plain building, no big banners saying "come swing here" and no way to see inside. And I bet if I tried to open a strip club or "novelty store" anywhere in my county, I would get turned down, as there are no shops, strip clubs, or the like here.

So, with that said, I don't *really* get the difference. I mean, I do, as there is a difference between selling chicken sandwiches and selling vibrators, but still one would get turned down on the basis of religious views while the other would be okay.

What grounds can a city, state, zoning commission, whoever have to legally deny a license to operate, or whatever?

If Company X has a history of employment discrimination, for instance, can a city say, "We don't want you here"? If their CEO is a convicted bad guy, could a town keep "his" restaurant out?

Dammit, this got all away from the Chick filet (I refuse to spell it all cutesy. Free speech, bisques) and got me all confused on something I thought was cut and dry, as in the crappy food chain has the right to operate wherever.

This makes me think zoning laws can be forked up. Like I know in my area, "adult" businesses of any type can't be anywhere near schools (which I'm okay with) or churches (which I am not.) There was some sort of swinger's club that got shut down near here before it opened for a number of reasons, but the primary one cited being that it was in view of a church (but it also completely ignored fire codes). This is despite the fact it was a very plain building, no big banners saying "come swing here" and no way to see inside. And I bet if I tried to open a strip club or "novelty store" anywhere in my county, I would get turned down, as there are no shops, strip clubs, or the like here.

So, with that said, I don't *really* get the difference. I mean, I do, as there is a difference between selling chicken sandwiches and selling vibrators, but still one would get turned down on the basis of religious views while the other would be okay.

I totally agree it doesn't make sense but I don't think we should move in the other direction where we ban more businesses because we don't agree with owners/members opinions.

I got to experience a similar absurdity to your strip club story above. We're registering for a government run daycare and put down that we were vegan. We were told if we could get the signature of a clergy member they would review it and approve, no problem...but since our veganism is based on ideological beliefs and not non-secular ones (i.e. religious), we have to have our pediatrician sign off that feeding our child animal products would be detrimental.

It's a ridiculous situation: if a priest or pastor tells me what not to eat, the government will respect that, but if I decide on my own volition that I do not want my child eating certain things for ethical reasons, then I need a licensed professional to back me up.

I'm not sure, we did joke with each other about asking Susie Coston (Farm Sanctuary) to sign off on it as our pope('tte?) of veganism haha. Our pediatrician seems amicable to it, but she's out of the office due to a family emergency so we're waiting to know for sure.

I totally agree it doesn't make sense but I don't think we should move in the other direction where we ban more businesses because we don't agree with owners/members opinions.

I got to experience a similar absurdity to your strip club story above. We're registering for a government run daycare and put down that we were vegan. We were told if we could get the signature of a clergy member they would review it and approve, no problem...but since our veganism is based on ideological beliefs and not non-secular ones (i.e. religious), we have to have our pediatrician sign off that feeding our child animal products would be detrimental.

It's a ridiculous situation: if a priest or pastor tells me what not to eat, the government will respect that, but if I decide on my own volition that I do not want my child eating certain things for ethical reasons, then I need a licensed professional to back me up.

I agree we don't need to move in any direction of banning businesses, I'm just disgusted by the hypocrisy of it all. And my state has the same kinds of things on the books in regards to public schools and religious crepe, but not "philosophical" reasons. I didn't even bother dealing with the food issue; I just pack my daughter's lunches...they will let you do that, won't they?

I totally agree it doesn't make sense but I don't think we should move in the other direction where we ban more businesses because we don't agree with owners/members opinions.

I got to experience a similar absurdity to your strip club story above. We're registering for a government run daycare and put down that we were vegan. We were told if we could get the signature of a clergy member they would review it and approve, no problem...but since our veganism is based on ideological beliefs and not non-secular ones (i.e. religious), we have to have our pediatrician sign off that feeding our child animal products would be detrimental.

It's a ridiculous situation: if a priest or pastor tells me what not to eat, the government will respect that, but if I decide on my own volition that I do not want my child eating certain things for ethical reasons, then I need a licensed professional to back me up.

I agree we don't need to move in any direction of banning businesses, I'm just disgusted by the hypocrisy of it all. And my state has the same kinds of things on the books in regards to public schools and religious crepe, but not "philosophical" reasons. I didn't even bother dealing with the food issue; I just pack my daughter's lunches...they will let you do that, won't they?

We honestly aren't sure what the fallout is if they don't accept our ideology as something that needs to be respected. Most places will allow us to pack a lunch etc, but we're still trying to figure out the details here. At the very least, the problem we may run into is the random snacks offered throughout the day that are almost all not vegan. Fortunately at least right now he's young enough to be exclusively on a breast milk diet so there's no worry for a few more months. Hopefully by then everything will be ironed out. If not though, we'll go back to the private daycare where they were fully supportive of our preference but charged double the price for their services.

I'm not sure, we did joke with each other about asking Susie Coston (Farm Sanctuary) to sign off on it as our pope('tte?) of veganism haha. Our pediatrician seems amicable to it, but she's out of the office due to a family emergency so we're waiting to know for sure.

I'm not sure, we did joke with each other about asking Susie Coston (Farm Sanctuary) to sign off on it as our pope('tte?) of veganism haha. Our pediatrician seems amicable to it, but she's out of the office due to a family emergency so we're waiting to know for sure.

Cuz I am one, and I would do it if it met their standard.

I appreciate the offer and we will honestly keep that in mind. We're going to go the pediatrician route first just because she's local, but if she backs out I will definitely drop you a line and see what can be done.

On an aside, would you mind me asking what sort of clergy you are? I am familiar with SDA's having vegetarian leanings, but wasn't really aware of any strict vegan religions and am really curious now.

No, I'm a rabbi. My faith tradition doesn't have any strict vegan anything, but I consider my veganism an outgrowth of my faith and I'm lucky to belong to a religion that has a relatively high proportion of ethical veg*ns.

No, I'm a rabbi. My faith tradition doesn't have any strict vegan anything, but I consider my veganism an outgrowth of my faith and I'm lucky to belong to a religion that has a relatively high proportion of ethical veg*ns.

We honestly aren't sure what the fallout is if they don't accept our ideology as something that needs to be respected. Most places will allow us to pack a lunch etc, but we're still trying to figure out the details here. At the very least, the problem we may run into is the random snacks offered throughout the day that are almost all not vegan. Fortunately at least right now he's young enough to be exclusively on a breast milk diet so there's no worry for a few more months. Hopefully by then everything will be ironed out. If not though, we'll go back to the private daycare where they were fully supportive of our preference but charged double the price for their services.

I was pretty lucky with kid's preschool because her first teacher was pretty familiar with veganism (because of a some religious thing she didn't really follow). She even knew a few oddball ingredients to look out for. And since she switched classes for the summer, my daughter has been super vocal about her food concerns. She even turned down red and pink popsicles just in case they have carmine. And the teachers always make sure to request Oreos and have cheapo stuff like Dum-Dums around.

Granted, mine didn't start pre-k until she was 4, which is very different from your situation. We totally derailed this thread, huh?